Norquist pitch on renewable energy mandate rejected

House, Senate respond by sidetracking separate bills

Anti-tax conservative Grover Norquist, shown during an earlier appearance in Topeka this year, attempted to convince Kansas legislators Thursday to support a bill to weaken a state law requiring utilities to draw 20 percent of energy from renewable sources by 2020. Subsequent votes by the House and Senate rejected that suggestion.

Anti-tax conservative Grover Norquist attempted to convince Kansas legislators Thursday to support a bill to weaken a state law requiring utilities to draw 20 percent of energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Subsequent votes by the House and Senate suggest lawmakers, at this time, weren't impressed.

Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said the Legislature ought to abandon the "costly renewable energy mandate so as to mitigate its negative impact on the economy."

However, the Senate responded by voting 17-23 to defeat Senate Bill 82 that would have postponed the deadline for complying with the Kansas renewable portfolio standard. Instead of Kansas utilities reaching 15 percent of power from wind, solar or other alternative source in 2016, the bill would have moved the date to 2018. The measure also pushed the 20 percent mandate to 2024 from 2020.

"We're at 10 percent, and I think it's a good time to step back and take a look at this," said Sen. Rob Olson, an Olathe Republican opposed to the renewable energy standard.

The House answered by voting 63-59 to send House Bill 2241 back to a committee for additional deliberation. This measure would amend the state's portfolio standard to declare 15 percent must be met by 2018, but the 20 percent target would be dropped.

House Republicans and Democrats supportive of the motion said previous House committee work on the bill was flawed, while other representatives questioned the goal of rewriting the state's renewable energy standard because the amendment would remove "regulatory certainty" for business.

"I would suggest we exercise prudent restraint," said Rep. Russell Jennings, R-Lakin. "In fairness to business, and in fairness to the people of Kansas, they need some certainty.”

Rep. Dennis Hedke, R-Wichita, and chairman of the House Energy and Environment Committee, which had sent the bill to the full House, said his committee "appropriately handled it."

Gov. Sam Brownback, who has championed development of wind energy resources in Kansas, said $3 billion was invested in the state's wind system during 2012. A federal tax break was central to moving Kansas to third place in production behind Texas and California, but the renewable portfolio standard rule sparked interest among Kansas utilities.

The RPS was adopted in 2009 as part of a compromise ending a legislative stalemate blocking issuance of a state permit necessary for construction of a coal-fired power plant in southwest Kansas.

Construction on the facility to be operated by a Kansas cooperative hasn’t started, and some legislators pointed to that reality as justification for ending an portfolio standard particularly beneficial to wind development. Some lawmakers said the state should emphasize production of power from more reliable sources, such as coal and natural gas.

"Experience has shown us that renewable energy mandates, like the one on the books in Kansas, hurt consumers," Norquist said. "This command and control policy forces companies to procure energy from more costly and less reliable sources with the increased costs passed on to consumers in the form of higher utility bills."

However, an official with Westar Energy in Topeka said the state's renewable standard was good public policy that had a "relatively small" influence on cost of energy paid by consumers.

Kimberly Svaty, who represents the Wind Coalition's turbine manufacturers, public interest activists and wind farm developers, said the state was closing in on the 15 percent requirement. She said the program helped to generate jobs and investment in the state.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of
civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site.
Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate
language, but readers might find some comments offensive or
inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the
"Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

I beg to differ. He has not grown up. He's still wanting everything his way or he throws a tantrum. I wish he'd hold his breath until . . . now, where was I . . . oh yeah, Grover's holding his breath until . . . zzzzzzzzzzz

"He was inspired to send a letter to representatives in favor of House Bill 2241, which would amend the state's renewable portfolio standard to stipulate 15 percent of a utility's energy mix must be from wind, solar or other alternative sources by 2018 and to eliminate the 20 percent target"
Huh? "inspired" by whom?

So the same non-Kansan whose well funded anti-tax "pledge" has hamstrung Congress in the current budget crisis now wants to tell our legislature why they should BREAK a pledge they made relatively recently concerning renewable energy? As with any policy, no doubt some are benefitting and others have been adversely affected, but I'd like to think that investors in our state can at least have some assurance that the rules won't change because of generalities and cliches spouted by a well funded outside group or individual.

American Heritage Dictionary definition of fascism: "...a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

American Heritage Dictionary definition of fascism: "...a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

our government leaders cared about the people of the United States. They passed laws forbidding any company getting so big that one man, or a few men, were the recipient of so much profit. Why? To keep them from getting so powerful they could control politicians. (Money equals buying power.) When Reagan got into office he started the trickle down economy. Now you see why we need to stop making the rich even richer. That is if you can abstract think this post through you will see it. If you can not abstract think you will continue to advocate for Reagan’s Voodoo economical plan.

I am, by nature, not a violent person nor one who wants to extract revenge upon people. I have gotten mad at people and wished them harm - and shame on me for being that way.

That being said, everytime I hear the name "Norquist" and see a picture of him (and the Kochs too), I just about lose it.

I would love the slap them silly, but someone already beat me to it. Yardman has it right - this punk never grew up. Wonder if he ever worked a day in his miserable life? How he attained so much supposed power is beyond me. And I say "supposed" because if enough people tell the little miscreant "no," then he will shrivel up and go away to slither under the rock from which he came.

Like I said, he is a punk, right along with the Kochs. Hopefully they don't show up within shouting distance of where I am.

sounds great...unfortunately in reality , with the technology we have today it is terribly inefficient. Consumers need to realize that this inefficiency will be reflected on their monthly bills. while it may be the politically correct thing now ,as the population grows, it will never be able to meet demand,even as it drives our electric bills through the roof. I personally believe nuclear energy is the only viable substitute for fossil fuels in the future.

wind turbines are around 40% efficient and require alot of maintainance...ive worked in power generation for over 30 years..but im sure you are more in the know. If all the green power people are willing to pay 30-50% higher bills for wind power , then i guess its all good.

only a very small fraction of power in kansas is actually produced by green power sources. I can assure you if it made up the majority of our power supply , you would see your bills increase dramatically

I was thinking someone from Westar in a different article said the average bill went up $.60 due to the renewables Westar is purchasing. Maybe it was $6.00. Either way. Not very significant. I believe the rates are more effected by the things that are having to be done to the coal plants.